As I have just responded to Philip I can well believe the SG bolloxed up its internal enquiry. These things happen. The question however is whether its bolloxing was as a result of its conspiracy or because it was shit. The allegation is conspiracy, which ties straight back into the women allegedly lying.
No it doesn't.
If its conspiracy it ties into those who are allegedly conspiring. The conspirators could be using the 9 women to further their own agenda, without the 9 being perjurers.
This is getting ever more obtuse. One of two things is true - Salmond did the things he is accused of, or he did not. The conspiracy is that he was fitted up, where the initial attempt to use an internal enquiry ended up having to pressure the police to bring about a prosecution.
Lets assume what you just said is true. How specifically could the conspirators use the women to further their own agenda and them tell the truth on the stand?
If what they said is true then Salmond committed the offences. The court found that he didn't commit the alleged offences - so either they told the truth but were disbelieved or they lied.
I can absolutely believe the telling the truth yet didn't secure a conviction scenario - it happens. Problem is that such a happenstance isn't them being part of a wider conspiracy to frame him (as in this scenario he did it).
Rochdale , have you read what the supposed crimes were, ie brushing past someone in a corridor , pushing someone on the back on a crowded stair to get them to stop dawdling, wakening someone up so border guards could get their passport etc etc. there were eye witnesses in amost if not all of them who gave different opinions. I cannot believe intelligent people just accept a headline even after it is 100% proven to be garbage. It was all fluff to try and bolster the one real one where it was proven by eye witnesses that the complainant was not even in the building that evening
Except that a large component of those housing costs gets onto the escalator of housing prices in London and re-emerges later as unearned capital gains concentrated there.
A majority of Londoners now rent privately or socially and people buying houses today are probably going to be sitting on big capital losses given the rate of population decrease London is currently seeing.
It does, however, mean that the living costs will decrease in the near future, especially for people renting or first time buyers benefiting from lower prices.
People buying today should be getting the benefit of reduced prices. Or should wait for it.
I think the people with the challenge will maybe be those who bought in the last couple of years between the start of the pandemic and say 2017.
But OTOH if they are using helptobuy the Govt will share the loss.
For all that, a fall is to be welcomed, and I would introduce the Proportional Property Tax to help try and make sure it sticks.
I think landlords are the easiest target, a 3-4% annual value surcharge for rented properties will turn them into forced sellers and bring prices down. Removal of the basic rate interest relief will also no longer allow single/dual BTL types to compete with owner occupiers.
There are 2.7m BTL landlords in the UK - and a substantial proportion of those will have invested in rented property as an alternative to pension investment. While such a policy of effective confiscation would certainly bring house prices down quite substantially in the short term, it would not increase the number of homes in the UK, and would bring out 2.7m voters at the next election for any party other than the Tories.
While I am neither a BTL landlord, nor a Tory, I have to regard any such policy as ... unwise. If not Brave.
They would be largely, perhaps completely, offset by the millions of tenants who are now owner-occupiers and therefore much more likely to vote Conservatives.
And there you are making the assumption those renters will be able to get a mortgage. For example for me to be able to get a mortgage the average price in my area would have to half roughly.
I think if they managed to half house prices that the governement would have a lot of home owners voting them out damn fast.
Making being a landlord be untenable as suggested means you are going to have a lot of people with no home as they can't get a sufficient mortgage to purchase a home and now there is nowhere they can rent either
Also of course many of those house will be HMO. That in itself would cause a few issues if they were all put on the market at once.
Except that a large component of those housing costs gets onto the escalator of housing prices in London and re-emerges later as unearned capital gains concentrated there.
A majority of Londoners now rent privately or socially and people buying houses today are probably going to be sitting on big capital losses given the rate of population decrease London is currently seeing.
It does, however, mean that the living costs will decrease in the near future, especially for people renting or first time buyers benefiting from lower prices.
People buying today should be getting the benefit of reduced prices. Or should wait for it.
I think the people with the challenge will maybe be those who bought in the last couple of years between the start of the pandemic and say 2017.
But OTOH if they are using helptobuy the Govt will share the loss.
For all that, a fall is to be welcomed, and I would introduce the Proportional Property Tax to help try and make sure it sticks.
I think landlords are the easiest target, a 3-4% annual value surcharge for rented properties will turn them into forced sellers and bring prices down. Removal of the basic rate interest relief will also no longer allow single/dual BTL types to compete with owner occupiers.
There are 2.7m BTL landlords in the UK - and a substantial proportion of those will have invested in rented property as an alternative to pension investment. While such a policy of effective confiscation would certainly bring house prices down quite substantially in the short term, it would not increase the number of homes in the UK, and would bring out 2.7m voters at the next election for any party other than the Tories.
While I am neither a BTL landlord, nor a Tory, I have to regard any such policy as ... unwise. If not Brave.
And they'll vote for Labour?
Do you really think it's a good idea to establish the principle that a government can tax an asset or asset-holder into oblivion just because the owners are politically unpopular or have nowhere else to go? There could be some (thoroughly foreseeable) unforeseen consequences to letting that policy take root...
I mean we already do it for smokers and other sin taxes. I'm proposing adding being a private landlord to the list of sin taxation. It's something that should be discouraged anyway.
Like I said, just wait for whatever assets you own to be added to the sin list. It'll be just as easy, and it'll be popular with all the people who don't own them, so why not?
I'm not seeing the slippery slope tbh, if they try and tax primary residences it's just going to lead to whoever proposes it being kicked out. Establishing a "wealth" tax on rentier assets such as rental property is actually a good way of ensuring we don't get them on non income generating assets such as primary residences as it establishes what should and shouldn't be taxed.
I think that's much too optimistic. It may seem like a logical way of proceeding, but politics isn't logical: creating a wealth tax in one type of property asset is just as likely to be used as a lever to open up other property assets (above all primary residences - a multi-trillion pound cash mountain that any government would love to devour) to the same. To the millions who own neither their own home nor a rental property, one 'privileged' property owner looks much like any other.
The country is still majority owner occupiers and that number, because of actions against landlords, is rising again. I just don't see it at all. It might win Labour a few seats in London but ultimately people will simply vote down any attempt to tax primary residences.
There are 3 separate issues when it comes to primary residences:-
Stamp Duty Council Tax Capital gains tax
The last is a complete no-no imagine the dementia tax x10 but a land tax that swallowed both Stamp Duty and Council Tax would solve a problem of how do you handle 30 year out of date council tax valuations.
As for landlords my biggest concern is that there is still an incentive for amateurs to borrow money and become landlords - I would prefer that that was discouraged with build to let encouraged to get pensions funds to build decent flats.
Merging stamp duty (an occasional tax for buyers) with council tax (an annual tax on both buyers and renters) sounds difficult to me. Having CGT include property values over (say) £1 million seems sellable to me to voters - lots of home owners are nowhere near £1 million, and anyway it'll only affect them maybe twice in their lives, whereas council tax bites them every year.
Unlike some here, I'd like to encourage BTL so we get a more competitive rental sector like other countries. If pension funds want to get into it, so much the better. Trying to squeeze out BTL so as to have more houses for sale helps those who can *nearly* afford to buy, but at the expense of those who need to rent (for whatever reason).
Don't you think the colour scheme is a stroke of genius for when Boris next spills his red wine on the sofa...or is this the actual white sofa complete with Boris' red wine stains that caused the police to be called in 2019? Hmmm.
Having thought a wee bit about it, I actually think it is bad that the PM and the Chancellor have to live 'above the shop'. I think it encourages a lack of separation between home and work life that isn't healthy. As one of his supposed secrets of success, Warren Buffet recommends living about 10-15 minutes away from work - short enough to make the commute easy, but far enough away to have psychological separation.
Of the potential digs in London, St James' Palace might work, as it is not packed with Royals as Kensington Palace is. The PM's residence should be comfortable, close to No. 10, and have a private outdoor space.
Which is of course exactly what happened with the Rent Acts.
Plus ca change.
Yep. It was an absolutely catastrophic policy. What makes it even worse is that, politically, it's incredibly difficult to correct once it's in place. It took the UK decades to recover from the last time it was done.
I must be one of the few PBers to have visited both Numbers 10 and 11, they are just way too small for a family to live in (and don't even get me started on the number of mice and rats I saw.)
There's a reason why PMs and Chancellors head off to Chequers and Dorneywood as often as possible.
We really need to move them out of Downing Street and somewhere more appropriate.
Plus why can't the current incumbents spend their own cash, they get a £30K a year allowance and can top that up with their own personal funds as the Camerons and Osbornes did. I understand Sunak is worth a few quid.
I do believe that Blair did look at copying the White House funding raising model but it was flagged up as a massive conflict of interests/ethics issue.
Whilst it is fine to donate to a political party, those donations do not wangle their way to the house the PM lives in.
As an aside, I want to be Foreign Secretary and live in Chevening full time.
I don't see why it would be a problem to just make No.10 and N0. 11 nothing but offices, and the office holders can live whereever they like, with a random 3 bed somewhere provided nearby if the incoming PM or Chancellor doesn't have a property close by.
Don't pretty much all major countries give live in accomodation for the head of government?
I can't think of any that don't.
Probably to do with security implications and the fact they're pretty much on call 24/7.
I'd imagine the security costs for the PM living in a 3 bed nearby would dwarf maintenance of 10 Downing Street.
Not if it was a grace and favour apartment in somewhere like St James’ Palace.
If we were a republic that would be the sort of sensible place to house the PM.
The French have the The Élysée Palace it would make sense for St James' Palace or Buckingham Palace to be the PM's office and home.
No it wouldn't, Buckingham Palace would be the home of the President as Head of State.
The French PM's official residence is the Hotel de Matignon, not the Elysee Palace which is the President's residence.
The President is the French Head of Government. The PM is the UK Head of Government.
When there's a G7 meeting Macron shakes hands* with Johnson. Macron doesn't shake hands* with Her Majesty the Queen. Johnson doesn't shake hands* with Castex whom I had to Google to find his name.
* Non Covid times.
The president of France is also the French head of state. If we have a state visit from France then it's the Queen that hosts Macron, not Boris.
True, just as the American President is dual Head of State and Head of Government.
If we were a Republic then Johnson could be Head of Government and Head of State.
No, the US President is head of Government and Head of State and also the equivalent of the Queen.
Boris is only the equivalent of Nancy Pelosi in US terms as leader of the lower chamber in the national legislature.
No he is not, you're getting tangled in semantics that don't work.
If the US President wants to discuss policy with the UK he calls the PM, not the Queen. If the PM wants to discuss policy with the US he calls the President, not Pelosi.
The idea that Pelosi is on the same level as the PM is ridiculous.
Yes he is, if the US President wants to discuss policy with the UK he may chat with the PM but only in his role as the Queen's chief minister, it is still the Queen who heads the British armed forces and the Government officially, not Boris.
Pelosi is head of the largest party in the US lower house as Boris is head of the largest party in the UK lower house, that is the only power Boris has on his own terms. Any power Boris has beyond that is exercised by him merely on behalf of the Queen, not his own terms.
Not true, because we are a democracy.
The Queen is a figurehead who answers to the PM and says whatever words he puts in front of her. The PM is in charge.
No, the Queen as Head of State appoints each new PM to head her government and accepts the resignation of PMs.
The PM is not in charge officially, they may do most of the practical work of government but they only do so on behalf of the monarch, it is still technically the monarch who heads the nation and is commander in chief of the armed forces, not the PM.
No the voters elect MPs who choose the PM.
The Queen is a figurehead whom everyone pretends appoints the PM. The Queen doesn't choose anything and hasn't for centuries.
You should familiarise yourself with how democracy works.
No voters do not directly choose the PM nor do MPs.
Only the Queen appoints the PM, just by convention she picks the leader of the party which has won most seats in the House of Commons and that can command a majority in the House of Commons to do the role.
😂😂😂😂😂
Sure she does.
😂😂😂😂😂
It's so tense after the election: will HM the Q endorse the person the voters thought they were getting for PM. Or will she send them away - and call for Peter Bone instead?
Well said. I'm just waiting for the moment that HMQ calls the leader who lost the election. For s##ts and giggles.
The Queen of course in the real world goes out of the way to NOT be the one who makes the choice.
I must be one of the few PBers to have visited both Numbers 10 and 11, they are just way too small for a family to live in (and don't even get me started on the number of mice and rats I saw.)
There's a reason why PMs and Chancellors head off to Chequers and Dorneywood as often as possible.
We really need to move them out of Downing Street and somewhere more appropriate.
Plus why can't the current incumbents spend their own cash, they get a £30K a year allowance and can top that up with their own personal funds as the Camerons and Osbornes did. I understand Sunak is worth a few quid.
I do believe that Blair did look at copying the White House funding raising model but it was flagged up as a massive conflict of interests/ethics issue.
Whilst it is fine to donate to a political party, those donations do not wangle their way to the house the PM lives in.
As an aside, I want to be Foreign Secretary and live in Chevening full time.
I don't see why it would be a problem to just make No.10 and N0. 11 nothing but offices, and the office holders can live whereever they like, with a random 3 bed somewhere provided nearby if the incoming PM or Chancellor doesn't have a property close by.
Don't pretty much all major countries give live in accomodation for the head of government?
I can't think of any that don't.
Probably to do with security implications and the fact they're pretty much on call 24/7.
I'd imagine the security costs for the PM living in a 3 bed nearby would dwarf maintenance of 10 Downing Street.
Not if it was a grace and favour apartment in somewhere like St James’ Palace.
If we were a republic that would be the sort of sensible place to house the PM.
The French have the The Élysée Palace it would make sense for St James' Palace or Buckingham Palace to be the PM's office and home.
No it wouldn't, Buckingham Palace would be the home of the President as Head of State.
The French PM's official residence is the Hotel de Matignon, not the Elysee Palace which is the President's residence.
The President is the French Head of Government. The PM is the UK Head of Government.
When there's a G7 meeting Macron shakes hands* with Johnson. Macron doesn't shake hands* with Her Majesty the Queen. Johnson doesn't shake hands* with Castex whom I had to Google to find his name.
* Non Covid times.
The president of France is also the French head of state. If we have a state visit from France then it's the Queen that hosts Macron, not Boris.
True, just as the American President is dual Head of State and Head of Government.
If we were a Republic then Johnson could be Head of Government and Head of State.
No, the US President is head of Government and Head of State and also the equivalent of the Queen.
Boris is only the equivalent of Nancy Pelosi in US terms as leader of the lower chamber in the national legislature.
No he is not, you're getting tangled in semantics that don't work.
If the US President wants to discuss policy with the UK he calls the PM, not the Queen. If the PM wants to discuss policy with the US he calls the President, not Pelosi.
The idea that Pelosi is on the same level as the PM is ridiculous.
Yes he is, if the US President wants to discuss policy with the UK he may chat with the PM but only in his role as the Queen's chief minister, it is still the Queen who heads the British armed forces and the Government officially, not Boris.
Pelosi is head of the largest party in the US lower house as Boris is head of the largest party in the UK lower house, that is the only power Boris has on his own terms. Any power Boris has beyond that is exercised by him merely on behalf of the Queen, not his own terms.
Not true, because we are a democracy.
The Queen is a figurehead who answers to the PM and says whatever words he puts in front of her. The PM is in charge.
No, the Queen as Head of State appoints each new PM to head her government and accepts the resignation of PMs.
The PM is not in charge officially, they may do most of the practical work of government but they only do so on behalf of the monarch, it is still technically the monarch who heads the nation and is commander in chief of the armed forces, not the PM.
No the voters elect MPs who choose the PM.
The Queen is a figurehead whom everyone pretends appoints the PM. The Queen doesn't choose anything and hasn't for centuries.
You should familiarise yourself with how democracy works.
No voters do not directly choose the PM nor do MPs.
Only the Queen appoints the PM, just by convention she picks the leader of the party which has won most seats in the House of Commons and that can command a majority in the House of Commons to do the role.
😂😂😂😂😂
Sure she does.
😂😂😂😂😂
Of course she does, hence every new PM must first go to Buckingham Palace and kiss her hand to be offered and accept the role.
Not sure this is quite true. They pretty much have to go to Buck House, yes, but if on arrival they were to baulk at pressing lips to the royal flesh, I'd have thought they would still get the job. Hard to see the Queen saying, "Look, stop trying to be interesting, kiss my hand or I'll send for somebody who will."
I know of a 19 year old fit and healthy student being called in and 32 year old lawyer. I think some surgeries are running out of age group subjects to call, so calling in anyone that they can get so vaccines are not wasted. Seems reasonable to me.
Don't you think the colour scheme is a stroke of genius for when Boris next spills his red wine on the sofa...or is this the actual white sofa complete with Boris' red wine stains that caused the police to be called in 2019? Hmmm.
That isn't Boris's apartment at number 10 - that flat is interior decorator Lulu Lytle's flat:
I must be one of the few PBers to have visited both Numbers 10 and 11, they are just way too small for a family to live in (and don't even get me started on the number of mice and rats I saw.)
There's a reason why PMs and Chancellors head off to Chequers and Dorneywood as often as possible.
We really need to move them out of Downing Street and somewhere more appropriate.
Plus why can't the current incumbents spend their own cash, they get a £30K a year allowance and can top that up with their own personal funds as the Camerons and Osbornes did. I understand Sunak is worth a few quid.
I do believe that Blair did look at copying the White House funding raising model but it was flagged up as a massive conflict of interests/ethics issue.
Whilst it is fine to donate to a political party, those donations do not wangle their way to the house the PM lives in.
As an aside, I want to be Foreign Secretary and live in Chevening full time.
I don't see why it would be a problem to just make No.10 and N0. 11 nothing but offices, and the office holders can live whereever they like, with a random 3 bed somewhere provided nearby if the incoming PM or Chancellor doesn't have a property close by.
Don't pretty much all major countries give live in accomodation for the head of government?
I can't think of any that don't.
Probably to do with security implications and the fact they're pretty much on call 24/7.
I'd imagine the security costs for the PM living in a 3 bed nearby would dwarf maintenance of 10 Downing Street.
Not if it was a grace and favour apartment in somewhere like St James’ Palace.
If we were a republic that would be the sort of sensible place to house the PM.
The French have the The Élysée Palace it would make sense for St James' Palace or Buckingham Palace to be the PM's office and home.
No it wouldn't, Buckingham Palace would be the home of the President as Head of State.
The French PM's official residence is the Hotel de Matignon, not the Elysee Palace which is the President's residence.
The President is the French Head of Government. The PM is the UK Head of Government.
When there's a G7 meeting Macron shakes hands* with Johnson. Macron doesn't shake hands* with Her Majesty the Queen. Johnson doesn't shake hands* with Castex whom I had to Google to find his name.
* Non Covid times.
The president of France is also the French head of state. If we have a state visit from France then it's the Queen that hosts Macron, not Boris.
True, just as the American President is dual Head of State and Head of Government.
If we were a Republic then Johnson could be Head of Government and Head of State.
No, the US President is head of Government and Head of State and also the equivalent of the Queen.
Boris is only the equivalent of Nancy Pelosi in US terms as leader of the lower chamber in the national legislature.
No he is not, you're getting tangled in semantics that don't work.
If the US President wants to discuss policy with the UK he calls the PM, not the Queen. If the PM wants to discuss policy with the US he calls the President, not Pelosi.
The idea that Pelosi is on the same level as the PM is ridiculous.
Yes he is, if the US President wants to discuss policy with the UK he may chat with the PM but only in his role as the Queen's chief minister, it is still the Queen who heads the British armed forces and the Government officially, not Boris.
Pelosi is head of the largest party in the US lower house as Boris is head of the largest party in the UK lower house, that is the only power Boris has on his own terms. Any power Boris has beyond that is exercised by him merely on behalf of the Queen, not his own terms.
Not true, because we are a democracy.
The Queen is a figurehead who answers to the PM and says whatever words he puts in front of her. The PM is in charge.
No, the Queen as Head of State appoints each new PM to head her government and accepts the resignation of PMs.
The PM is not in charge officially, they may do most of the practical work of government but they only do so on behalf of the monarch, it is still technically the monarch who heads the nation and is commander in chief of the armed forces, not the PM.
No the voters elect MPs who choose the PM.
The Queen is a figurehead whom everyone pretends appoints the PM. The Queen doesn't choose anything and hasn't for centuries.
You should familiarise yourself with how democracy works.
No voters do not directly choose the PM nor do MPs.
Only the Queen appoints the PM, just by convention she picks the leader of the party which has won most seats in the House of Commons and that can command a majority in the House of Commons to do the role.
😂😂😂😂😂
Sure she does.
😂😂😂😂😂
It's so tense after the election: will HM the Q endorse the person the voters thought they were getting for PM. Or will she send them away - and call for Peter Bone instead?
Well said. I'm just waiting for the moment that HMQ calls the leader who lost the election. For s##ts and giggles.
The Queen of course in the real world goes out of the way to NOT be the one who makes the choice.
Don't you think the colour scheme is a stroke of genius for when Boris next spills his red wine on the sofa...or is this the actual white sofa complete with Boris' red wine stains that caused the police to be called in 2019? Hmmm.
Lord Advocate warns the Scottish parliamentary committee to be careful as they question him. "The committee should not entertain any attack on the integrity of the Crown or the hardworking people who work for it". Again, imagine a DPP saying that in evidence to Westminster.
Lord Advocate says he identified problems in what Salmond said. But when Spectator went to the High Court, the Crown Office raised no objections to what we published. So Mitchell's question stands: why the double standards? Why special restrictions for Parliament's investigation?
Which is of course exactly what happened with the Rent Acts.
Plus ca change.
The story of New York since when - the War?
Always the way with rent controls - the current incumbents benefit, and the next generation gets buggered as new builds slows and non-viable properties, the the more marginal ones needed by poorer and rent-impaired people are sold up.
Then the credit-impaired get double buggered by not being able to borrow, and triply buggered by rents have gone up or gone black market.
Don't you think the colour scheme is a stroke of genius for when Boris next spills his red wine on the sofa...or is this the actual white sofa complete with Boris' red wine stains that caused the police to be called in 2019? Hmmm.
Don't you think the colour scheme is a stroke of genius for when Boris next spills his red wine on the sofa...or is this the actual white sofa complete with Boris' red wine stains that caused the police to be called in 2019? Hmmm.
That isn't Boris's apartment at number 10 - that flat is interior decorator Lulu Lytle's flat:
Don't you think the colour scheme is a stroke of genius for when Boris next spills his red wine on the sofa...or is this the actual white sofa complete with Boris' red wine stains that caused the police to be called in 2019? Hmmm.
That isn't Boris's apartment at number 10 - that flat is interior decorator Lulu Lytle's flat:
Don't you think the colour scheme is a stroke of genius for when Boris next spills his red wine on the sofa...or is this the actual white sofa complete with Boris' red wine stains that caused the police to be called in 2019? Hmmm.
That isn't Boris's apartment at number 10 - that flat is interior decorator Lulu Lytle's flat:
That wasn't for shits and giggles, Whitlam had lost control of the Parliament and couldn't get his budget passed. Though certainly the Governor General and monarchy were weakened after that as a result.
If the 2017-19 Parliamentary opposition had united to oust Johnson and install Corbyn it would have been MPs who'd acted not the monarch.
There is a pot into which the following should be put: public heritage buildings, obligation to remain faithful to the vernacular, modern day living arrangements and tastes, the necessity or custom for PMs to live at No.10, public and private living areas.
But frankly I am too busy today to work it all out.
tl/dr? There is a case for the public purse to pay for some upkeep and redecoration of No.10 or it would still be wattle and daub. In conjunction with heritage organisations, perhaps.
But a charity? Sounds very shady. Are we sure that's what has happened?
FPT, there is apparently a £30k pa budget.
Ah thanks. Wouldn't that be more appropriate for a mid-terrace house in Harlow?
I mean this is a bit of the why does the PM fly by PJ/first class thing. Because he is the PM. Because it's No.10 - an iconic building, etc...
To put it in perspective I redid my study last year - a new built in bookcase a d chest of drawers, stone floor, some electrics. Cost £20k.
It’s nice but doesn’t look flashy.
£30k doesn’t go far in London prices
Ouch. I gutted my entire northern 3 bed house (pretty much reduced it to a brick shell), moved several stud walls, re-plastered every wall, overboarded or replaced all the ceilings, full rewire, new double glazed windows, new kitchen and bathroom, new (expensive) laminate flooring for all downstairs, redecorated everything, and it cost about £40k all up.
Which is of course exactly what happened with the Rent Acts.
Plus ca change.
Yep. It was an absolutely catastrophic policy. What makes it even worse is that, politically, it's incredibly difficult to correct once it's in place. It took the UK decades to recover from the last time it was done.
NYC ditto. I knew a couple with a rent-controlled pied-a-terre in Manhatten and a big house in Connecticut. To him that hath shall be given.
There is a pot into which the following should be put: public heritage buildings, obligation to remain faithful to the vernacular, modern day living arrangements and tastes, the necessity or custom for PMs to live at No.10, public and private living areas.
But frankly I am too busy today to work it all out.
tl/dr? There is a case for the public purse to pay for some upkeep and redecoration of No.10 or it would still be wattle and daub. In conjunction with heritage organisations, perhaps.
But a charity? Sounds very shady. Are we sure that's what has happened?
FPT, there is apparently a £30k pa budget.
Ah thanks. Wouldn't that be more appropriate for a mid-terrace house in Harlow?
I mean this is a bit of the why does the PM fly by PJ/first class thing. Because he is the PM. Because it's No.10 - an iconic building, etc...
To put it in perspective I redid my study last year - a new built in bookcase a d chest of drawers, stone floor, some electrics. Cost £20k.
It’s nice but doesn’t look flashy.
£30k doesn’t go far in London prices
Ouch. I gutted my entire northern 3 bed house (pretty much reduced it to a brick shell), moved several stud walls, re-plastered every wall, overboarded or replaced all the ceilings, full rewire, new double glazed windows, new kitchen and bathroom, new (expensive) laminate flooring for all downstairs, redecorated everything, and it cost about £40k all up.
In London that kind of work would be an order of magnitude more expensive - literally.
If it ever happens here it will be because of over a decade of one generation gaining capital at the expense of the young, and the many policies that have enabled that.
I must be one of the few PBers to have visited both Numbers 10 and 11, they are just way too small for a family to live in (and don't even get me started on the number of mice and rats I saw.)
There's a reason why PMs and Chancellors head off to Chequers and Dorneywood as often as possible.
We really need to move them out of Downing Street and somewhere more appropriate.
Plus why can't the current incumbents spend their own cash, they get a £30K a year allowance and can top that up with their own personal funds as the Camerons and Osbornes did. I understand Sunak is worth a few quid.
I do believe that Blair did look at copying the White House funding raising model but it was flagged up as a massive conflict of interests/ethics issue.
Whilst it is fine to donate to a political party, those donations do not wangle their way to the house the PM lives in.
As an aside, I want to be Foreign Secretary and live in Chevening full time.
I don't see why it would be a problem to just make No.10 and N0. 11 nothing but offices, and the office holders can live whereever they like, with a random 3 bed somewhere provided nearby if the incoming PM or Chancellor doesn't have a property close by.
Don't pretty much all major countries give live in accomodation for the head of government?
I can't think of any that don't.
Probably to do with security implications and the fact they're pretty much on call 24/7.
I'd imagine the security costs for the PM living in a 3 bed nearby would dwarf maintenance of 10 Downing Street.
Not if it was a grace and favour apartment in somewhere like St James’ Palace.
If we were a republic that would be the sort of sensible place to house the PM.
The French have the The Élysée Palace it would make sense for St James' Palace or Buckingham Palace to be the PM's office and home.
No it wouldn't, Buckingham Palace would be the home of the President as Head of State.
The French PM's official residence is the Hotel de Matignon, not the Elysee Palace which is the President's residence.
The President is the French Head of Government. The PM is the UK Head of Government.
When there's a G7 meeting Macron shakes hands* with Johnson. Macron doesn't shake hands* with Her Majesty the Queen. Johnson doesn't shake hands* with Castex whom I had to Google to find his name.
* Non Covid times.
The president of France is also the French head of state. If we have a state visit from France then it's the Queen that hosts Macron, not Boris.
True, just as the American President is dual Head of State and Head of Government.
If we were a Republic then Johnson could be Head of Government and Head of State.
No, the US President is head of Government and Head of State and also the equivalent of the Queen.
Boris is only the equivalent of Nancy Pelosi in US terms as leader of the lower chamber in the national legislature.
No he is not, you're getting tangled in semantics that don't work.
If the US President wants to discuss policy with the UK he calls the PM, not the Queen. If the PM wants to discuss policy with the US he calls the President, not Pelosi.
The idea that Pelosi is on the same level as the PM is ridiculous.
Yes he is, if the US President wants to discuss policy with the UK he may chat with the PM but only in his role as the Queen's chief minister, it is still the Queen who heads the British armed forces and the Government officially, not Boris.
Pelosi is head of the largest party in the US lower house as Boris is head of the largest party in the UK lower house, that is the only power Boris has on his own terms. Any power Boris has beyond that is exercised by him merely on behalf of the Queen, not his own terms.
Not true, because we are a democracy.
The Queen is a figurehead who answers to the PM and says whatever words he puts in front of her. The PM is in charge.
No, the Queen as Head of State appoints each new PM to head her government and accepts the resignation of PMs.
The PM is not in charge officially, they may do most of the practical work of government but they only do so on behalf of the monarch, it is still technically the monarch who heads the nation and is commander in chief of the armed forces, not the PM.
No the voters elect MPs who choose the PM.
The Queen is a figurehead whom everyone pretends appoints the PM. The Queen doesn't choose anything and hasn't for centuries.
You should familiarise yourself with how democracy works.
No voters do not directly choose the PM nor do MPs.
Only the Queen appoints the PM, just by convention she picks the leader of the party which has won most seats in the House of Commons and that can command a majority in the House of Commons to do the role.
😂😂😂😂😂
Sure she does.
😂😂😂😂😂
It's so tense after the election: will HM the Q endorse the person the voters thought they were getting for PM. Or will she send them away - and call for Peter Bone instead?
Well said. I'm just waiting for the moment that HMQ calls the leader who lost the election. For s##ts and giggles.
The Queen of course in the real world goes out of the way to NOT be the one who makes the choice.
Rab Butler says hello.
I thought that was Macmillan's scheming. Just as Macmillan himself was due to Lord Salisbury and Lord Kilmuir's scheming.
In fact, I would have said the last Prime Minister appointed by the Sovereign, rather than merely confirmed, was Baldwin in 1923, who was appointed despite the advice of the parliamentary party, Lord Salisbury, Stamfordham and Beaverbrook that Curzon was the better candidate.
Due to a certain laxness on my parents part, my brother and I mail ordered a fun array of chemicals, back when...
These days our shopping list would have armed ninjas in gas masks popping by for tea.
In retrospect I'm horrified at the chemicals my brother and I had access to in my childhood in the sixties. It was completely routine to get concentrated hydrochloric and sulphuric acid, which you could buy from any chemist. Plus various explosive combinations - my brother's speciality was filling spent gun cartridges with sodium chlorate and sugar, and then carrying out controlled explosions of them in my sister's sandpit.
And into the seventies.
My brother had a similar hobby, though he used baked bean tins buried in the flowerbed. Also the mercury from old barometers was used as a precursor for making the (highly dangerous - and equally dangerous in preparation, though he used a rudimentary fume cabinet for any mercury vapour) mercury fulminate for detonators.
Definitely not recommended, and also illegal today.
Posrcode lottery I presume. They are injecting quicker in Oxfordshire than in N London.
Still Not Happy
My 30 year old niece in the West Country got hers last week. No underlying conditions, not a carer, etc.
30!
That *is* iffy.
My wife (41) got jabbed on the weekend in East London, and my mate (40) got it two weeks ago in South London.
Both have underlying health issues, but only incredibly tenuously.
Loads of young people with no conditions have had the jab because there's no point in wasting it at the end of the day. If you can only find young healthy people to have it at short notice there the one's who'll be getting it.
I thought that was Macmillan's scheming. Just as Macmillan himself was due to Lord Salisbury and Lord Kilmuir's scheming.
In fact, I would have said the last Prime Minister appointed by the Sovereign, rather than merely confirmed, was Baldwin in 1923, who was appointed despite the advice of the parliamentary party, Lord Salisbury, Stamfordham and Beaverbrook that Curzon was the better candidate.
Don't you think the colour scheme is a stroke of genius for when Boris next spills his red wine on the sofa...or is this the actual white sofa complete with Boris' red wine stains that caused the police to be called in 2019? Hmmm.
That isn't Boris's apartment at number 10 - that flat is interior decorator Lulu Lytle's flat:
Except that a large component of those housing costs gets onto the escalator of housing prices in London and re-emerges later as unearned capital gains concentrated there.
A majority of Londoners now rent privately or socially and people buying houses today are probably going to be sitting on big capital losses given the rate of population decrease London is currently seeing.
It does, however, mean that the living costs will decrease in the near future, especially for people renting or first time buyers benefiting from lower prices.
People buying today should be getting the benefit of reduced prices. Or should wait for it.
I think the people with the challenge will maybe be those who bought in the last couple of years between the start of the pandemic and say 2017.
But OTOH if they are using helptobuy the Govt will share the loss.
For all that, a fall is to be welcomed, and I would introduce the Proportional Property Tax to help try and make sure it sticks.
I think landlords are the easiest target, a 3-4% annual value surcharge for rented properties will turn them into forced sellers and bring prices down. Removal of the basic rate interest relief will also no longer allow single/dual BTL types to compete with owner occupiers.
There are 2.7m BTL landlords in the UK - and a substantial proportion of those will have invested in rented property as an alternative to pension investment. While such a policy of effective confiscation would certainly bring house prices down quite substantially in the short term, it would not increase the number of homes in the UK, and would bring out 2.7m voters at the next election for any party other than the Tories.
While I am neither a BTL landlord, nor a Tory, I have to regard any such policy as ... unwise. If not Brave.
Don't you think the colour scheme is a stroke of genius for when Boris next spills his red wine on the sofa...or is this the actual white sofa complete with Boris' red wine stains that caused the police to be called in 2019? Hmmm.
That isn't Boris's apartment at number 10 - that flat is interior decorator Lulu Lytle's flat:
I like it. Genuinely. A bold mix of Regency and Chinoiserie and the Raj
Quiet good taste can be so dull, and tasteless
That precise look in 10 Downing Street would be considered highly inappropriate, ie colonial.
That aside, anything too extravagant wouldn't work, because the apartment needs to be ready for new occupants every few years. So leopard print panelling and frescoes depicting the stations of the cross (with all the characters as different breeds of dog) won't fly.
I thought that was Macmillan's scheming. Just as Macmillan himself was due to Lord Salisbury and Lord Kilmuir's scheming.
In fact, I would have said the last Prime Minister appointed by the Sovereign, rather than merely confirmed, was Baldwin in 1923, who was appointed despite the advice of the parliamentary party, Lord Salisbury, Stamfordham and Beaverbrook that Curzon was the better candidate.
I must be one of the few PBers to have visited both Numbers 10 and 11, they are just way too small for a family to live in (and don't even get me started on the number of mice and rats I saw.)
There's a reason why PMs and Chancellors head off to Chequers and Dorneywood as often as possible.
We really need to move them out of Downing Street and somewhere more appropriate.
Plus why can't the current incumbents spend their own cash, they get a £30K a year allowance and can top that up with their own personal funds as the Camerons and Osbornes did. I understand Sunak is worth a few quid.
I do believe that Blair did look at copying the White House funding raising model but it was flagged up as a massive conflict of interests/ethics issue.
Whilst it is fine to donate to a political party, those donations do not wangle their way to the house the PM lives in.
As an aside, I want to be Foreign Secretary and live in Chevening full time.
I don't see why it would be a problem to just make No.10 and N0. 11 nothing but offices, and the office holders can live whereever they like, with a random 3 bed somewhere provided nearby if the incoming PM or Chancellor doesn't have a property close by.
Don't pretty much all major countries give live in accomodation for the head of government?
I can't think of any that don't.
Probably to do with security implications and the fact they're pretty much on call 24/7.
I'd imagine the security costs for the PM living in a 3 bed nearby would dwarf maintenance of 10 Downing Street.
Not if it was a grace and favour apartment in somewhere like St James’ Palace.
If we were a republic that would be the sort of sensible place to house the PM.
The French have the The Élysée Palace it would make sense for St James' Palace or Buckingham Palace to be the PM's office and home.
No it wouldn't, Buckingham Palace would be the home of the President as Head of State.
The French PM's official residence is the Hotel de Matignon, not the Elysee Palace which is the President's residence.
The President is the French Head of Government. The PM is the UK Head of Government.
When there's a G7 meeting Macron shakes hands* with Johnson. Macron doesn't shake hands* with Her Majesty the Queen. Johnson doesn't shake hands* with Castex whom I had to Google to find his name.
* Non Covid times.
The president of France is also the French head of state. If we have a state visit from France then it's the Queen that hosts Macron, not Boris.
True, just as the American President is dual Head of State and Head of Government.
If we were a Republic then Johnson could be Head of Government and Head of State.
No, the US President is head of Government and Head of State and also the equivalent of the Queen.
Boris is only the equivalent of Nancy Pelosi in US terms as leader of the lower chamber in the national legislature.
No he is not, you're getting tangled in semantics that don't work.
If the US President wants to discuss policy with the UK he calls the PM, not the Queen. If the PM wants to discuss policy with the US he calls the President, not Pelosi.
The idea that Pelosi is on the same level as the PM is ridiculous.
Yes he is, if the US President wants to discuss policy with the UK he may chat with the PM but only in his role as the Queen's chief minister, it is still the Queen who heads the British armed forces and the Government officially, not Boris.
Pelosi is head of the largest party in the US lower house as Boris is head of the largest party in the UK lower house, that is the only power Boris has on his own terms. Any power Boris has beyond that is exercised by him merely on behalf of the Queen, not his own terms.
Not true, because we are a democracy.
The Queen is a figurehead who answers to the PM and says whatever words he puts in front of her. The PM is in charge.
No, the Queen as Head of State appoints each new PM to head her government and accepts the resignation of PMs.
The PM is not in charge officially, they may do most of the practical work of government but they only do so on behalf of the monarch, it is still technically the monarch who heads the nation and is commander in chief of the armed forces, not the PM.
No the voters elect MPs who choose the PM.
The Queen is a figurehead whom everyone pretends appoints the PM. The Queen doesn't choose anything and hasn't for centuries.
You should familiarise yourself with how democracy works.
No voters do not directly choose the PM nor do MPs.
Only the Queen appoints the PM, just by convention she picks the leader of the party which has won most seats in the House of Commons and that can command a majority in the House of Commons to do the role.
😂😂😂😂😂
Sure she does.
😂😂😂😂😂
Of course she does, hence every new PM must first go to Buckingham Palace and kiss her hand to be offered and accept the role.
Not sure this is quite true. They pretty much have to go to Buck House, yes, but if on arrival they were to baulk at pressing lips to the royal flesh, I'd have thought they would still get the job. Hard to see the Queen saying, "Look, stop trying to be interesting, kiss my hand or I'll send for somebody who will."
Flip side of that is thank God Alec Salmond never got to be PM.
What the f*ck is this person doing anyway - they knew they were on a flight back from Brazil, they knew they took a test that came back positive and they know they haven't thus far been contacted.
When they're eventually caught-up with they should be made to pay for this nonsense and when recovered from their exotic infection, publicly flogged for being a complete arse.
Except that a large component of those housing costs gets onto the escalator of housing prices in London and re-emerges later as unearned capital gains concentrated there.
A majority of Londoners now rent privately or socially and people buying houses today are probably going to be sitting on big capital losses given the rate of population decrease London is currently seeing.
It does, however, mean that the living costs will decrease in the near future, especially for people renting or first time buyers benefiting from lower prices.
People buying today should be getting the benefit of reduced prices. Or should wait for it.
I think the people with the challenge will maybe be those who bought in the last couple of years between the start of the pandemic and say 2017.
But OTOH if they are using helptobuy the Govt will share the loss.
For all that, a fall is to be welcomed, and I would introduce the Proportional Property Tax to help try and make sure it sticks.
I think landlords are the easiest target, a 3-4% annual value surcharge for rented properties will turn them into forced sellers and bring prices down. Removal of the basic rate interest relief will also no longer allow single/dual BTL types to compete with owner occupiers.
There are 2.7m BTL landlords in the UK - and a substantial proportion of those will have invested in rented property as an alternative to pension investment. While such a policy of effective confiscation would certainly bring house prices down quite substantially in the short term, it would not increase the number of homes in the UK, and would bring out 2.7m voters at the next election for any party other than the Tories.
While I am neither a BTL landlord, nor a Tory, I have to regard any such policy as ... unwise. If not Brave.
And they'll vote for Labour?
Do you really think it's a good idea to establish the principle that a government can tax an asset or asset-holder into oblivion just because the owners are politically unpopular or have nowhere else to go? There could be some (thoroughly foreseeable) unforeseen consequences to letting that policy take root...
I mean we already do it for smokers and other sin taxes. I'm proposing adding being a private landlord to the list of sin taxation. It's something that should be discouraged anyway.
Like I said, just wait for whatever assets you own to be added to the sin list. It'll be just as easy, and it'll be popular with all the people who don't own them, so why not?
I'm not seeing the slippery slope tbh, if they try and tax primary residences it's just going to lead to whoever proposes it being kicked out. Establishing a "wealth" tax on rentier assets such as rental property is actually a good way of ensuring we don't get them on non income generating assets such as primary residences as it establishes what should and shouldn't be taxed.
I think that's much too optimistic. It may seem like a logical way of proceeding, but politics isn't logical: creating a wealth tax in one type of property asset is just as likely to be used as a lever to open up other property assets (above all primary residences - a multi-trillion pound cash mountain that any government would love to devour) to the same. To the millions who own neither their own home nor a rental property, one 'privileged' property owner looks much like any other.
The country is still majority owner occupiers and that number, because of actions against landlords, is rising again. I just don't see it at all. It might win Labour a few seats in London but ultimately people will simply vote down any attempt to tax primary residences.
There are 3 separate issues when it comes to primary residences:-
Stamp Duty Council Tax Capital gains tax
The last is a complete no-no imagine the dementia tax x10 but a land tax that swallowed both Stamp Duty and Council Tax would solve a problem of how do you handle 30 year out of date council tax valuations.
As for landlords my biggest concern is that there is still an incentive for amateurs to borrow money and become landlords - I would prefer that that was discouraged with build to let encouraged to get pensions funds to build decent flats.
Merging stamp duty (an occasional tax for buyers) with council tax (an annual tax on both buyers and renters) sounds difficult to me. Having CGT include property values over (say) £1 million seems sellable to me to voters - lots of home owners are nowhere near £1 million, and anyway it'll only affect them maybe twice in their lives, whereas council tax bites them every year.
Unlike some here, I'd like to encourage BTL so we get a more competitive rental sector like other countries. If pension funds want to get into it, so much the better. Trying to squeeze out BTL so as to have more houses for sale helps those who can *nearly* afford to buy, but at the expense of those who need to rent (for whatever reason).
Well - we already have a competitive Private Rental Sector, it's just that a lot of people have believed a lot of media narratives, and there's lots of out-of-date politics around. Nobody else has been investing as much in renovation of older housing stock, and PRS is now better environmentally than owner occupied.
Pension Funds and Investment Companies are involved - noteably L&G have built a 5000 property build-to-rent portfolio, but they are only interested in the top 20% of the market, and there rents tend to be some way above local market norms, relying on bundled services and "new" appeal.
Christ, I once went past a Butlins and assumed it was the British equivalent of the Guantanamo Bay detention camp.
No worse than Centre Parcs. The one in Sherwood also looks like a PoW camp with the 12 foot high fencing and razor wire.
Funnily enough, I believe the site was used as one in WW2.
A couple of young families from work swore by Centre Parcs. It may be that standards have risen considerably in the last few years, as happened with cruise liners.
I see we've had the Boris is responsible for 10s of thousands of deaths brigade on here again today. For the life of me I cannot see how this is possible - and I give him very little credit for vaccines either. Unless there was a meeting where someone said for example 'if we discharge all these oldies into care homes we risk spreading the virus into a vulnerable group'. I would be very very very surprised if this is the case and expect that in general advice from scientific advisers was followed. Isn't this just s case of people making decisions with the best available information?
I see we've had the Boris is responsible for 10s of thousands of deaths brigade on here again today. For the life of me I cannot see how this is possible - and I give him very little credit for vaccines either. Unless there was a meeting where someone said for example 'if we discharge all these oldies into care homes we risk spreading the virus into a vulnerable group'. I would be very very very surprised if this is the case and expect that in general advice from scientific advisers was followed. Isn't this just s case of people making decisions with the best available information?
Christ, I once went past a Butlins and assumed it was the British equivalent of the Guantanamo Bay detention camp.
No worse than Centre Parcs. The one in Sherwood also looks like a PoW camp with the 12 foot high fencing and razor wire.
Funnily enough, I believe the site was used as one in WW2.
A couple of young families from work swore by Centre Parcs. It may be that standards have risen considerably in the last few years, as happened with cruise liners.
Same here - a few at work with young families used to go and told me they were great.
They are probably fine inside if you like that kind of thing, but they don't look that great from the outside!
There is a pot into which the following should be put: public heritage buildings, obligation to remain faithful to the vernacular, modern day living arrangements and tastes, the necessity or custom for PMs to live at No.10, public and private living areas.
But frankly I am too busy today to work it all out.
tl/dr? There is a case for the public purse to pay for some upkeep and redecoration of No.10 or it would still be wattle and daub. In conjunction with heritage organisations, perhaps.
But a charity? Sounds very shady. Are we sure that's what has happened?
FPT, there is apparently a £30k pa budget.
Ah thanks. Wouldn't that be more appropriate for a mid-terrace house in Harlow?
I mean this is a bit of the why does the PM fly by PJ/first class thing. Because he is the PM. Because it's No.10 - an iconic building, etc...
To put it in perspective I redid my study last year - a new built in bookcase a d chest of drawers, stone floor, some electrics. Cost £20k.
It’s nice but doesn’t look flashy.
£30k doesn’t go far in London prices
Ouch. I gutted my entire northern 3 bed house (pretty much reduced it to a brick shell), moved several stud walls, re-plastered every wall, overboarded or replaced all the ceilings, full rewire, new double glazed windows, new kitchen and bathroom, new (expensive) laminate flooring for all downstairs, redecorated everything, and it cost about £40k all up.
Nothing structural, them.
And the bonus of keeping the existing central heating .
I see we've had the Boris is responsible for 10s of thousands of deaths brigade on here again today. For the life of me I cannot see how this is possible - and I give him very little credit for vaccines either. Unless there was a meeting where someone said for example 'if we discharge all these oldies into care homes we risk spreading the virus into a vulnerable group'. I would be very very very surprised if this is the case and expect that in general advice from scientific advisers was followed. Isn't this just s case of people making decisions with the best available information?
Apparently it is the decision to send old people with Covid back to care homes, where it spread quickly and killed lots of other residents. This was at a time when no one knew much about Covid I guess.
What puzzles me is what would have happened if those people had not been sent back to their care homes, but stayed in hospital - wouldn't they have spread it like wildfire there and killed lots of other patients? I dont see how people say "it has caused x amount of deaths" without considering what would have happened had the covid carriers stayed in hospital
I am afraid that I’ve actually been to Pontin’s. Circa 1993.
Was an abomination.
I went to one (Somerset) in mid 2000s and it actually wasn't that bad, accommodation wise (at least, the bit we stayed in). It all looked quite new, maybe it was. I've stayed in worse hotels. Should note that this was an ATP festival in closed season (April?) so it was not particularly busy and devoid of usual customers, just some drunk/stoned indie kids wandering around and Nick Cave sitting outside his chalet looking grumpy (think that's just his normal expression, so his accommodation might have been fine too).
I wouldn't have wanted to go in summer, any kind of resort place for a holiday is my idea of hell.
Why is it taken for granted that a digital vaccination certificate will be more secure than a non-digital one? That isn't the experience in lots of other areas of life such as voting. I think digital forms of security are often more likely to be breached than the alternatives.
I see we've had the Boris is responsible for 10s of thousands of deaths brigade on here again today. For the life of me I cannot see how this is possible - and I give him very little credit for vaccines either. Unless there was a meeting where someone said for example 'if we discharge all these oldies into care homes we risk spreading the virus into a vulnerable group'. I would be very very very surprised if this is the case and expect that in general advice from scientific advisers was followed. Isn't this just s case of people making decisions with the best available information?
As ever, one needs balance here, and as ever I can supply it. It's a nonsense to argue that most of the deaths are his fault. But he was playing politics in December. And in his craven handling of the Cummings scandal he voluntarily shattered public confidence in lockdown messaging. So there are two cases where lives were lost through culpable personal negligence rather than well meaning competence or bad luck. How many lives? We must await the enquiry and hope it isn't a whitewash.
Somebody needs to pull their fingers out....I presume this is actually still February numbers (of terms of when they were jabbed). Lets hope they have now fired up the Quattro now we are in March.
Except that a large component of those housing costs gets onto the escalator of housing prices in London and re-emerges later as unearned capital gains concentrated there.
A majority of Londoners now rent privately or socially and people buying houses today are probably going to be sitting on big capital losses given the rate of population decrease London is currently seeing.
It does, however, mean that the living costs will decrease in the near future, especially for people renting or first time buyers benefiting from lower prices.
People buying today should be getting the benefit of reduced prices. Or should wait for it.
I think the people with the challenge will maybe be those who bought in the last couple of years between the start of the pandemic and say 2017.
But OTOH if they are using helptobuy the Govt will share the loss.
For all that, a fall is to be welcomed, and I would introduce the Proportional Property Tax to help try and make sure it sticks.
I think landlords are the easiest target, a 3-4% annual value surcharge for rented properties will turn them into forced sellers and bring prices down. Removal of the basic rate interest relief will also no longer allow single/dual BTL types to compete with owner occupiers.
There are 2.7m BTL landlords in the UK - and a substantial proportion of those will have invested in rented property as an alternative to pension investment. While such a policy of effective confiscation would certainly bring house prices down quite substantially in the short term, it would not increase the number of homes in the UK, and would bring out 2.7m voters at the next election for any party other than the Tories.
While I am neither a BTL landlord, nor a Tory, I have to regard any such policy as ... unwise. If not Brave.
They would be largely, perhaps completely, offset by the millions of tenants who are now owner-occupiers and therefore much more likely to vote Conservatives.
And there you are making the assumption those renters will be able to get a mortgage. For example for me to be able to get a mortgage the average price in my area would have to half roughly.
I think if they managed to half house prices that the governement would have a lot of home owners voting them out damn fast.
Making being a landlord be untenable as suggested means you are going to have a lot of people with no home as they can't get a sufficient mortgage to purchase a home and now there is nowhere they can rent either
Also of course many of those house will be HMO. That in itself would cause a few issues if they were all put on the market at once.
Also rental is more densely occupied than owner-occupied sector, and more efficient in energy use terms. Under-occupation is chronic in the OO sector. Under-occupied is 2 or more spare bedrooms.
Comments
I cannot believe intelligent people just accept a headline even after it is 100% proven to be garbage.
It was all fluff to try and bolster the one real one where it was proven by eye witnesses that the complainant was not even in the building that evening
I doubt there is much new BTL activity anyway, not since Osborne’s (overdue) changes.
Unlike some here, I'd like to encourage BTL so we get a more competitive rental sector like other countries. If pension funds want to get into it, so much the better. Trying to squeeze out BTL so as to have more houses for sale helps those who can *nearly* afford to buy, but at the expense of those who need to rent (for whatever reason).
Of the potential digs in London, St James' Palace might work, as it is not packed with Royals as Kensington Palace is. The PM's residence should be comfortable, close to No. 10, and have a private outdoor space.
Still Not Happy
My 30 year old niece in the West Country got hers last week. No underlying conditions, not a carer, etc.
30!
The Queen of course in the real world goes out of the way to NOT be the one who makes the choice.
It’s all falling into place.
My wife (41) got jabbed on the weekend in East London, and my mate (40) got it two weeks ago in South London.
Both have underlying health issues, but only incredibly tenuously.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtW6fgrUIMI
I think it's quite nice btw.
Twitter is so pathetic.
Lord Advocate says he identified problems in what Salmond said. But when Spectator went to the High Court, the Crown Office raised no objections to what we published. So Mitchell's question stands: why the double standards? Why special restrictions for Parliament's investigation?
Always the way with rent controls - the current incumbents benefit, and the next generation gets buggered as new builds slows and non-viable properties, the the more marginal ones needed by poorer and rent-impaired people are sold up.
Then the credit-impaired get double buggered by not being able to borrow, and triply buggered by rents have gone up or gone black market.
A decent piece about the recent mess in Berlin:
https://www.bloombergquint.com/global-economics/berlin-rent-freeze-cuts-prices-but-it-s-harder-to-find-a-flat
Obviously the SPD / die Linke / Green council are demanding that their policies are the solution, not the problem.
Quiet good taste can be so dull, and tasteless
They do say a loss of taste is a symptom and if you like that decor then you definitely have no taste.
If the 2017-19 Parliamentary opposition had united to oust Johnson and install Corbyn it would have been MPs who'd acted not the monarch.
Was an abomination.
In fact, I would have said the last Prime Minister appointed by the Sovereign, rather than merely confirmed, was Baldwin in 1923, who was appointed despite the advice of the parliamentary party, Lord Salisbury, Stamfordham and Beaverbrook that Curzon was the better candidate.
My brother had a similar hobby, though he used baked bean tins buried in the flowerbed. Also the mercury from old barometers was used as a precursor for making the (highly dangerous - and equally dangerous in preparation, though he used a rudimentary fume cabinet for any mercury vapour) mercury fulminate for detonators.
Definitely not recommended, and also illegal today.
Funnily enough, I believe the site was used as one in WW2.
Thanks for taking one for the team.
Even if I was on the breadline I'd rather holiday in a motorway underpass than go there.
EDIT: I see it's Twitter fakenews bs. Quelle surprise.
No axes, scales off the page, no error bars, no indication of comparative size of regulated & unregulated market, etc.
"No tongues! NO TONGUES!! PHILIP!!!!"
When they're eventually caught-up with they should be made to pay for this nonsense and when recovered from their exotic infection, publicly flogged for being a complete arse.
https://twitter.com/Dennynews/status/1366755833741213697
Pension Funds and Investment Companies are involved - noteably L&G have built a 5000 property build-to-rent portfolio, but they are only interested in the top 20% of the market, and there rents tend to be some way above local market norms, relying on bundled services and "new" appeal.
Nicola really is leading Boris a merry dance....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kW7M-zOSHc
https://twitter.com/hugogye/status/1366761591283286019?s=21
I'm not personally interested in interiors although my wife is very passionate about them. It often goes that way, I'm told.
I expect, however, if No. 10 had spent similar amounts on upgrading its fleet of Jags we'd have heard very little about it.
They are probably fine inside if you like that kind of thing, but they don't look that great from the outside!
With the fact they have gained little traction with the public.
But the bills are yet to come in. Tomorrow sees the first of several giant sh8t sandwiches the government is going to serve the voters.
They won;t care, right?
Two birds with one stone. You gotta admire the the girl.
And the bonus of keeping the existing central heating
Public Health England does not publish data for local areas with fewer than three cases “to protect individuals’ identities”.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/millions-of-people-in-covid-notspots-with-almost-no-cases-in-their-area-98jjg0kdv
https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1366760327711502345?s=20
We're defeating this bug.
What puzzles me is what would have happened if those people had not been sent back to their care homes, but stayed in hospital - wouldn't they have spread it like wildfire there and killed lots of other patients? I dont see how people say "it has caused x amount of deaths" without considering what would have happened had the covid carriers stayed in hospital
I wouldn't have wanted to go in summer, any kind of resort place for a holiday is my idea of hell.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/vaccination-passport-to-unlock-europe-for-uk-tourists-kp76zcz56
https://twitter.com/willsloanesq/status/1366378899668615170?s=21
I believe that is the definition of an overwhelming majority.
So you would need a lot of extra houses, too.
Source: 19-20 English Housing Survey